Page 1604 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (5.09): I appreciate the explanation by Mr Lamont and others concerning the horseracing industry. However, I think that creating an offence before we have consultation with the industry and develop a code of practice is putting the horse before the cart. We make no allowance for valid differences within the various industries that involve the use of animals.
I was sitting here a moment ago listening to the suggestion that the key word is "could"; in other words, when you have been charged you might be able to present a view that you were not guilty. With most legislation it is always a matter of "could"; you are never guilty until you are proven guilty. I am sorry; it should be the case under our system of justice that you are not guilty until you are proven guilty. The suggestion that it is just a matter of "could", I find not relevant.
Perhaps it is even easier to understand when we look at clause 8, particularly when you remove the word "deliberately". It makes it even more so. It says:
A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, -
leave out the word "deliberately" -
cause an animal unnecessary pain.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in the mind of anybody in Canberra, I would think, that some pain can be caused in horseracing, and if that is the case that is an offence.
Mr Lamont: Code of practice.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Lamont mentions a code of practice. I have a lot of papers in front of me, but I cannot find it. If it were here, we could perhaps say, "Yes, it is covered by the code of practice". This is the exact point. I was sitting here listening to the explanation and I was thinking that, were it another situation, I could see every member in this Assembly agreeing with this point, truly, because it is logical. No-one has explained anything. I can see Mr Connolly standing up and saying very eloquently that of course we should have the code of practice before we bring in offences.
If it is suggested that we can create the offences but not do anything about the offences that are committed under the Act until there is a code of practice, is that sensible legislation? The second that this Bill, if passed, is gazetted and becomes law, the racing industry has committed an offence. The reason is that the definition of "offence" refers not only to things that you have done or omitted to do but also to something that you are going to do, or someone reasonably believes you are going to do.
Mr Lamont: May.
MR STEVENSON: I do not have the exact wording; I will get it after. As I said, I think codes of practice are excellent. I think it is a good idea to have them. There would be many people within the industry and within Canberra who enjoy racing and who are concerned, perhaps, about some practices within racing and who would like to develop a code of practice. But let us not tell someone that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .